Women Priests | Blogger Priest

Priestesses & Dissent Against the Deposit

Posted on June 25, 2011 by Father Joe

It is evident from the Epistles and the Acts of Apostles that the roots of our ordination teaching are pre-Nicene. While insufficient to remedy the break in apostolic succession that afflicted the Anglican ordinal early in England’s reformation, it is true that their priests and bishops who have shored up their orders with Old Catholic and Orthodox Bishops concelebrating their ordinations and consecrations may indeed be sharers in holy orders. When the Anglican Archbishop of London was received into the Roman Catholic Church, he was not re-ordained as is the usual practice but was conditionally ordained a priest. This exception was shown because he was able to show with some certitude his pedigree of orthodox precursors. Otherwise, the 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curiae, still holds: Anglican orders are null and void. This all aside, the point I want to make is that the exclusion of women is a long held tradition that cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. Indeed, it is a fitting example of the canon discerned by St. Vincent of Lerins about the certitude of a doctrine as a practice or belief common to the Church “everywhere, to everyone, at all times.” The Church would allow for the organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of a human body from infancy to maturity; but, and this comes straight from John Henry Newman, this development while real must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine involved. This cannot be said of the revisionist position in favor of Christian priestesses. The faithful Catholic must “guard the deposit” (1 Timothy 6:20), the revelation enshrined in the Scriptures and interpreted in the Church’s tradition by the Magisterium.

Proponents of women’s ordination dissent from the promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church. This work has been given the Imprimi Potest by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger himself, head of the Congregation of the Faith, who is now Pope Benedict XVI. It is introduced by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, by Pope John Paul II. He writes: “It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church.” He makes no qualification in declaring “it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” A couple of paragraphs later, he says it again: “This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine . . . .”

Nevertheless, by dissenting against the teaching of the male-only priesthood, critics seek to undermine the truthfulness of the entire document and the God-given authority of the Church to teach it. They even castigate the Magisterium as murderers of vocations. They make relative what should be objective truth. They reinterpret Scripture according to their own “personal” and false enlightenment and dismiss the exegetical role of the teaching Church. They ignore tradition as irrelevant or pretend that it is somehow in their favor. They do all this, and yet plead to be a good Catholics. We must be careful of dissent.

Let us look at what the catechism says about women priests:

[1577] “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination” (CIC, can. 1024). The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible (Cf. John Paul II, MD 26-27; CDF, declaration, Inter insigniores: AAS 69 [1977] 98-116).

Inter insigniores leaves no room for discussion. It says:

“. . . the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” A sentence or so later it reiterates the point: “The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women.”

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Priestesses, Priests, Sexuality, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

Priestesses & a Flawed Interpretation of Galatians

Posted on June 23, 2011 by Father Joe

There is much confusion in the argument for women’s ordination around the hackneyed use of St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. The passage in question is in reference to a baptismal formula and is not a justification for priestesses. It regards the universal offer of salvation in Christ, not the makeup of the sacrament of holy orders. Arguing that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) as a qualification for priestesses is nothing more than a cheap classical reductionism. What is the statement actually saying? The phrase, “neither male nor female” is not focused on biology or psychology, just as “nether slave nor free” is not a statement of sociology and “neither Jew nor Greek” fails to center on anthropological realities. Moving away from fundamentalism or literalism, the statement in Galatians is heavenly, even apocalyptic language. This particular unity does not emanate from a common humanity but rather from God’s election. It is similar to that for which Jesus appealed: “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me” (John 18:20-23).

This unity for which Christ prays is not yet fully realized. During our earthly pilgrimage, the Church must be sufficiently sacramental so as to perceive the current realities of sex, position, culture, etc., raising up that which is of value in each and discarding that which profanes both God and men. Fr. George Rutler writes:

Secular exploitation of sexual differences in fields which theoretically have no sexual restrictions violate the Christian mind but that is a far different matter from the divine discrimination which merely states the reality of different sexes. St. Paul’s statement about male and female eradicates the fact of maleness and femaleness no more than his statement about bond and free or Jew and Greek denies the reality of Onesimus and Philemon or the fundamentals of geography. Certainly his readers know this; that is the source of one of the great ironies of the ordinal controversy: proponents of priestesses quickly label St. Paul an anti-feminist on the grounds of his abiding awareness of the different order of men and women yet they simultaneously use his own writing in Galatians 3:28 as a proof text for the indistinguishability which he himself found so grim. Having sighted the careful line between representation and misrepresentation, these exegetes have approached it with all the temerity of Caesar at the Rubicon. (Priest and Priestess, pp. 21-23).

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Eucharist, Priestesses, Priests, Sacraments, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

Women Priests or Priestesses?

Posted on June 22, 2011 by Father Joe

Maybe we should stop using the phrase, “woman priest”? It seems to me that the modern abhorrence of the word “priestess” is a telling fact. Even our unconscious psyches are uncomfortable with the possibility and this Orwellian word game is somehow an attempt to bypass our revulsion and the theological absurdity. Fr. George Rutler remarked in his Episcopalian days: “. . . and to say ‘woman priest’ is semantically as androit as saying ‘female rooster.'” Perhaps we avoid the word priestess because it tears to shreds any conception of this notion as fresh and modern? The word may even be older than “priest.” (See the book Priest and Priestess by Fr. George W. Rutler.)

The new Episcopalian priestesses are not so much one with true Catholic priests as they are with their western European and Mesopotamian forebears who rendered sybilline declamations over animal entrails.

Critics of the Catholic exclusion often quote the universality of baptism and faith in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They confuse Catholic soteriology (that salvation is available to all) with the tradition of a male-only priesthood instituted by Christ and maintained by the apostles. A favorite verse of mine is this one: “But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Paul addresses himself in the subsequent text to some of the lesser and changeable traditions (like Mass veils), but his theological underpinnings are what constitutes the revealed truth. More exactly, he is talking about Christian anthropology and the sacrament of marriage. A woman cannot signify the groom, Christ the head. An even greater scandal erupts if such a priestess were literally married. She who is subject to her husband would then seek the submissiveness of the Church, including her husband, to her. A contradiction would emerge. Those who do not like this analogy have an argument, not with me, but with St. Paul and the Holy Spirit which inspired him.

If critics can cast aside the teachings of popes and apostles, how can they be so sure that they have the mind of Christ regarding women’s ordination?

Bishop Kenneth Untener on Women Priests

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Father Joe

The bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died in 2004. It is not my intention to speak ill of the dead, but I still feel compelled to give a strong critique of his argument in favor of women priests. Giving the appearance of orthodoxy, he maintained the usage of “in persona Christi,” while evacuating it of authentic meaning. His claim of a shift in its understanding “since the 1940′s” is not substantiated since it was already well developed in the scholastic tradition. Our deepening appreciation of it has been a legitimate instance of the operation of the universal ordinary Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As such it takes upon itself a level of certitude, dare I say infallibility, especially in regards to its five citations in the Vatican II documents. Conciliar teachings do not have to be statistically verified. The bishop, trying to find any loophole for women priests ignored this point.

For those unfamiliar, let me summarize his views. He caricatured, and I believe falsely, the teaching as mere “impersonation,” no different from an actor pretending to be someone else in a contemporary drama. Opposed to St. Jerome’s supposedly “false translation” of the Greek (and here I will transliterate) “en prosopo Christou” (2 Corinthians 2:10) as “in persona Christi,” the bishop claimed it really meant “in the presence of Christ” or “before (the face of) Christ.” If the minister only impersonates Christ, and is not actually present in the priest, then his view would open the door to women priests.

Although these renditions of the word “prosopon” have some validity, one cannot so carelessly dismiss the Vulgate Latin Bible. It remains the official ecclesial translation. Further, the terminology “prosopon” was being stretched or advanced in meaning from its routine usage in Greek drama.

In contrast, various critics will avow that the “persona” manifested is the divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity but disavow his male-differentiated humanity. However, Christ’s identity can never be split. Thus, while Bishop Untener would actually evacuate any ontological reality of Christ’s presence at the altar, these other critics would divide and subtract from it.

Ecumenically, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox churches concur with us, even if they might use different terminology. For Eastern Christians, the priest is considered “an icon of Christ.” It must be remembered that icons are considered more than simple images. They are venerated as somehow holding God’s presence in them. The priesthood takes this iconic identification still further. To say that a priest acts as Christ’s icon means that we can experience the undivided person of Christ in him. To make this identification even more complete, the constitutive element of a priest’s maleness may be supplemented by such accidentals as vestments and a beard.

Bishop Untener may be correct in that the Mass is a drama; but, the priest is more than an actor. Every Mass is Christ’s as the principal celebrant. Unless he is present in the person of the priest, this assertion becomes nonsense. The late bishop minimized the meaning of the “prosopon” or mask and others ignore the Greek source for this idea entirely. An actor in ancient Greek theater would hold up a “prosopon” or face to disguise his countenance. More than simply “impersonating” the character as in modern drama, the face he held allowed him to take unto himself a new, even if pseudo-real, identity. These transformations became so thorough, that many of the ancients considered acting to be a vocation.

In the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, AD, over the identity of Jesus, “prosopon” was understood as an external concrete apparition, the appearance of the “physis.” The “physis” was a set of characteristics or properties, in other words, that which made up the nature of a thing. However, even in this context, the word “prosopon” was strengthened by the term “hypostasis.” [This was because some feared what critics have done regarding the priesthood, dividing or subtracting from Christ.] This last word was closely connected with the term “persona” in the West. The word “person” signified the firm ground from out of which an existing thing took its stand and developed. [It is the person of Christ who stands and renders sacrifice in front of our altars. The priest does not pretend to be Christ. At the Sacrifice of the Mass, he is the undivided Christ.]

The bishop wrote, “In the early centuries we do not see this phrase used to describe the role of the ordained priest.” Why is this? The answer is simple. The Church comes to a further understanding of herself and of her doctrinal treasury through conflict. Christ’s identification with the minister in the liturgy was not at issue. For that matter, even when surrounded by pagan priestesses and heretical ones, the consensus of the Church was so sure that no defense of the male priesthood was thought necessary.

Through all the rhetoric, the bishop was essentially implying that the sexuality and/or body of the human being should not be a determining factor of worthiness for holy orders. Historically, there is a precedent that says otherwise. Indeed, as I have taught before, the Gnostics who copied many Christian rituals possessed a female priesthood. They also denied that Christ was really a human being. If he were not really a man, we are not redeemed. Do we really want to run this course? I think not. One minor bishop does not constitute or veto the whole Magisterium in union with the Pope.

Abusing St. Thomas’ appreciation of instrumental causality, the bishop wrote that “Christ makes use of the instrument of a priest in the sacraments in the same way that a physician makes use of a scalpel — as an instrument, although in this case, an animate instrument.” What he bypasses is that a man is not a scalpel and a priest is not any man. The nature of the instrument must be respected. Christ has so configured a man that through ordination he is capable of making the Lord present through his very person. This is the legitimate instrumentality of the priest at Mass.

The bishop’s article about the priesthood and women is reprinted in his book, THE PRACTICAL PROPHET. The post was a letter to a proponent of women’s ordination.

AMAZON: The Practical Prophet

Filed under: Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Images, Jesus, Magisterium, Mass, Priestesses, Priests, Sexuality, Women Priests | 8 Comments »

Bishop Katharine Schori – No Hope for Catholic & Anglican Reunion

Posted on June 20, 2006 by Father Joe

Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new leading bishop in the American Episcopal Church is a former Roman Catholic. Her parents brought her into the Episcopal Church when she was “not quite nine” and she attended a Catholic convent school maintained by the Sacred Heart Nuns. She is fluent in Spanish and active in outreach to Hispanics, pretty much all who were formerly Catholic. She is a liberal who voted for the consecration of the openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, three years ago. She also supports the blessing of same-sex unions. She is a scientist, only ordained a priest in 1994.

Victoria Garvey, one of two sergeants-at-arms who escorted Schori to the convention floor after the election, said: “My heart stopped. A number of people — men and women — were weeping. . . . I’m a former Roman Catholic, and part of the reason I made the switch was over women in the church. Thirty years after finally approving women’s ordination, we now have a woman bishop presiding.”

Schori tells a reporter for THE LIVING CHURCH FOUNDATION: “My parents brought me into the Episcopal Church in early 1963, in conjunction with their own move out of the Roman Catholic tradition. This was before Vatican II had had any impact on parish life, and as a fifth-grader, my awareness of the difference was of language (from Latin to English) and of community and style (large and faceless to small and intimate). My understanding of faith in this new community was increasingly about the ability to ask questions. The vicar was a remarkable gatherer of people and artistic gifts into warm, challenging, and effective community. I would summarize my experience of the shift as from a religion of prohibition to one of invitation.”

*****

The 75th General Convention has gone and done it. When I was young I was full of hope that the division between the Catholic and Anglican communities would be healed. But there is no chance now. A few churches and individuals may continue to seek reunion; but as a whole, it cannot happen. The Episcopal church is now solidly in the rank of liberal Protestantism and has abandoned its Catholic and traditional roots. While claiming Scripture, they have dismissed the pattern that goes back to Christ in his selection of men as his apostles, the first bishops and priests of the Church. They have also dismissed clear Scriptural messages where we find divine positive law about such matters like the indissolubility of marriage, the evil of fornication, adultery and homosexual acts. Indeed, with one act, the consecration of Gene Robinson, many of these borders were trespassed; afterall, he had left his wife to live with his gay lover. His consecration was an indirect but real act of approbation toward these evils.

The trouble with a female bishop, from the Catholic perspective, is the fact that we do not see any concrete biblical or traditional evidence that it is God’s will. Pope John Paul II even went so far as to say that we do not have the authority to ordain women. Thus, if the ordinations of men as priests in the Anglican churches were in doubt (because of Orthodox and Old Catholic participation) and in most cases rejected, certainly the sacramental reality is going to be denied completely in regard to women.

There are no priestesses in the Christian religion.

Any priests ordained by women bishops will not be priests themselves.

Any Masses offered by any of them will not be the sacrifice of Christ and will not be the Real Presence!

She calls Catholicism the “religion of prohibition” and in doing so devalues the riches of the Catholic faith, many of which were once shared, even if in a lesser and defective way, in her own Protestant communion. The Church cannot tolerate anything and everything. The last convention, the only moral question upon which the Episcopalians could agree was about a prohibition toward landmines. About everything else they had compromised with a pagan and/or secular modernity.

The new bishop calls homosexuality a gift, not a sin.

Can there be any doubt that she will continue to support the gay agenda and the ordination of openly gay priests and bishops?

The Episcopal churches have already stepped aside regarding the most important issue of the day, abortion.

When asked about the alienation that many feel about her selection, she simply spoke about it as the personal problem of “not knowing another human being.” But of course, the problem in conscience for many conservative Anglicans is that they have Catholic and traditional views on ministry and morality. The problem is not something that a greeting and handshake will resolve.

When asked about the tension with communities that do not accept women priests, her answer was not only flippant but targeted the Catholic discipline. She called the priest an “actor” which is already a far cry from the Roman Catholic view of the priest as an “alterchristus”. A theatrical actor pretends but the Catholic priest at the altar really is offering the sacrifice of Calvary “in the person of Christ, head of the Church.” It is this point of identification which is at the heart of the Catholic dispute with Anglican priestesses. Women cannot stand at the altar as Christ, the bridegroom of the Church. Anyhow, she moves the question first to so-called “pastoral underpinnings” and then quickly dismisses critics of women priests as donatist heretics who put too much emphasis on the holiness and attributes of the actor.

A sacrament, including Holy Orders, requires legitimate MATTER. The Catholic Church has determined that such is a “male” human being. Donatism does not speak to the question of proper matter or intention. Donatism implies that the minister is already validly ordained. The heresy of Donatism is in regard to moral failings and the efficacy of the sacraments. The Church responded to this rigorism by stipulating that the efficacy of the sacraments did not depend upon the worthiness of the minister but on Christ. Therefore, even a priest in mortal sin can hear Confessions and offer the Mass. The Lord protects the sacraments for his people.

Schori would extend the heresy of Donatism to those who would exclude women from the priesthood because they are not men. Good try, but such reasoning does not fly. Neither can it be applied to the dubious priesthood of others in the Anglican communion. Being female is not a moral failing and neither is it an accidental. Men and women are not utterly interchangeable. Our gender touches the core of our identity.

It is unfortunate that Episcopalians cannot always know if their priests are valid or not, but such confusion is not due to Donatism. The Catholic Church makes no claim against their degree of holiness and individual faithfulness (where true Donatists take offense); all we are saying is that if you are not a priest then you cannot offer that work priests are empowered to do.

Elements of discipline like celibacy, poverty and obedience are often required of candidates, but failure in regard to promises and the moral life do not negate the sacraments. While women cannot be validly ordained, homosexual men (given that they are chaste and celibate) can be ordained. However, the question still arises as to whether it is a good or prudential idea. Even homosexual priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church might be valid, given the faith to which they subscribe is sufficiently Catholic and the ordaining bishop or bishops possess apostolic succession. At one time it was pretty clear that all orders in the Anglican churches had become null-and-void and that apostolic succession had been lost. However, given the presence and participation of Old Catholics and the Orthodox at episcopal consecrations, and the defection of Catholic clergy into the Episcopal churches, the matter is less clear today.

The breakup of the Anglican communion is taking place before our eyes. Some are seeking primatial support from Africa and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth Texas has appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other prelates of the Anglican Communion for another primate to have pastoral oversight over the diocese. (However, the Anglican Church in England is also rushing quickly away from its ancient Christian roots and values and practices.) I would hope that some would finally come to their senses and call upon their best friend, Pope Benedict XVI. There are already Anglican-Usage parishes in operation and there is talk that the Pope might even make the concession of lifting the celibacy discipline for future clergy in their churches after reunion. The presence of married clergy in the Catholic Church who were formerly Episcopalian priests has paved a road to this eventuality.

But the tragedy remains that there will be no worldwide reunion. Things have gone too far now. It cannot be fixed. I am not dispairing of the Holy Spirit, just a realist in regard to how people can place secular values over Church tradition and the Gospel. We thought we might have the glass glued back together but then it was deliberately fractured again and again. All we have are splinters now.

Schori opposed the Winsor Report released by the Lambeth Commission on Communion which suggested that the ECUSA make amends and say it was sorry for the trouble caused by electing an openly gay bishop. The report would also have established a moratorium on ordaining homosexual bishops and blessing same-sex couples. Her election is essentially telling the rest of the Anglican communion, NO DEAL!

Schori’s consecration as presiding bishop will be celebrated at the Washington National Cathedral. I wonder if the Catholic and Orthodox prelates will stay away? I hope so, because their presence would only lend credence to a terrible lie– about the health of a church community and about a so-called bishop.

DISCUSSION

And she is also rather creative:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51325

FATHER JOE:

The nominating committee considered her qualifications. Now, it looks like she fabricated a few credentials.

She noted herself as the “pastoral associate and dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology in Corvallis, Oregon (1994-2000).” The trouble is that no such school of higher learning appears to exist. It turns out, or so she says, this was her name for the adult education program operated by the local parish, over which she was not even rector.

She also wrote that she was the “priest in charge of El Buen Samaritano, Corvallis, Oregon,” which turns out the be the Spanish-speaking parishioners of Good Samaritan Church.

Goodness! She certainly fattened her resume with exaggeration and purposeful deception!

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4536

PATRICK:

As a member of a rapidly-growing Episcopal congregation and a former Roman Catholic, I am thrilled at the consecration of our new Presiding Bishop, but I also know what a rough road she has ahead of her. She is a woman of God, plain and simple. She is perceived as a threat to so many because she is a woman of God who is leading. Her mere presence as Bishop challenges existing hierarchies. But her great faith and intelligence will lead her and the faithful, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Church has been very good to the Episcopal Church in recent decades. Half of our parish’s growing membership is formerly Roman Catholic, and we expect that trend to continue. So please by all means keep your hearts and minds closed to the real working of the Holy Spirit in the 21st century, and send your members our way! We welcome them with open hearts.

KATHY SCHORI:

[Note that I have almost no doubt that this person is an imposter!]

Hahaha!

Yes, it is truly the work of the Spirit!

Let the superstitious Roman Church insist upon its cookie worship, we know that fellowship is the most central and Jesus’ words should not be taken too literally.

Let the patriarchal Roman Church deny women their role as priests, we are more enlightened today by psychology and sociology over the chauvinists who are slaves of male tradition, no matter if it does go back to Jesus or not.

Let the bigoted Roman Church persecute gay, lesbian and transgendered peoples, we know that anal and oral sex is right and fun, and that no one, not even that gay-basher St. Paul, has a right to say anything different.

Let the bigoted Roman Church alienate the divorced and remarried, we are happy to fill our pews with your adulterers, fornicators and perverts.

Let the Republican Party-controlled Roman Church scream and holler about abortion, we respect people and the hard choices they make, yes even if it means killing unwanted babies.

We make no argument against contraception, either, and if most papists were honest they would leave the Roman whore and join the Episcopal Church where we have beautiful rituals but never take ourselves too seriously, especially in the bedroom.

Save the whales, ban landmines, these are the real Christian issues of our day!

Yes brother Patrick, we welcome the papists to our Episcopal communion.

May the Spirit of the World lead more and more to our ranks.

Amen, I mean, Awomen!

FATHER JOE:

What’s going on here? Are you guys serious?

I hardly need to make a rebuttal.

Such attitudes might drive the more clear thinking souls back to the Catholic Church.

Goodness me.

PAUL R:

I would like to congratulate you on this excellent article, Father Joe, which is particularly valuable to Episcopalians/Anglicans because it gives a view from the outside. You have hit the main point on the head. The Episcopal Church is forsaking its roots in Holy Scripture and Tradition and becoming increasingly “Post-Christian” and neo-pagan.

Also, while you are correct that the idea of the priest as an “actor” playing the role of Jesus Christ is inaccurate, it may be useful in explaining what I understand to be one of the significant theological reasons for opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood: a woman, no matter how talented an actress she may be, would be “miscast” in the “role” of Jesus Christ in a movie or play about Him. How much more unsuitable would she be as an Alter Christus (or as the Orthodox might put it as a living icon of Christ at the altar)?

Pray for me, Father, as I pray for you.

FATHER JOE:

You have my prayers.

JOHANNIM:

It was only a matter of time since Pope Henry 8th ripped an unwilling English people away from the Catholic Church that the Anglican/Episcopal church would start breaking up. The Anglican church in 2007 is a mere shell of what it once was. Reactionaries, revisionist of the worst ilk now control this faith group from London to Washington from Sydney to Ottawa. The Anglicans in the developing world will have none of it and at their last meeting Orthodox Anglican bishops even refused to share communion with neo Marxist fanatics & pro homosexual bishops from Europe & North America. Whole parishes are returning to the Roman Catholic Church and the trend is increasing. There is even an Anglican rite growing in popularity in the Catholic Church as more and more Anglicans & their priests leave that church. With the advent of Pope Benedict 16th and the recent motu proprio SUMMARUM PONTIFICUM and the resurgence of the ancient divine liturgy often referred to as the Tridentine aka Latin Mass whose roots go back to the 3rd & 4th century of the common era there is a tremendous increase in attendance throughout Europe of (predominantly) Catholic youth attending the ancient Mass, as the Novus Ordo declines millions are returning to the Roman Catholic Church. The same phenomenon is occurring in North America in that where the ancient Latin Mass is offered the churches are literally packed to the rafters with predominately young people. To be an Anglican these days means to believe in anything you want even to denial of Christ’s divinity. The glue that kept the Anglicans together for 400 yrs. is dissolving and that glue was polite civility between the warring factions of Henry the 8th schismatic church. No longer does low, broad or high church Anglicans tolerate each other. The Anglican church today and it’s offshoots like Methodism would even disgust Karl Marx & Adolf Hitler. It’s all very sad. Shalom.

ROBERT HAWKINS:

Roman Church controlled by “Republicans?” The Catholic Church in the United States is overwhelmingly Democrat. Give me a break.

MISTER SMITH:

First of all the theology that the presiding bishop is wrong!! Of course I am not surprised that the Church will grow!! Most people want to her what they want to her. Same sex marriage, the homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable, she might is well ordain people who steal!! Why? They believe they are born that way; let’s not take that from them too.

Filed under: Bishops, Church, Commandments, Ecumenism, Morality, News, Priestesses, Religion, Women Priests | 6 Comments »